zapatos

I may be mistaken but I don't think the House hearings were of a 'legal' nature. Had they found criminal acts they would have had to turn it over to the proper authorities who would have decided whether or not a crime was committed. I don't think 'grounds' are the issue. They can release the report or not at their discretion.

No, you fixed it for yourself so that you would not be shown to be wrong.

You have. However you provided no evidence of people being inept/lazy, only evidence of some level of being uninformed. Uninformed does not equal inept/lazy.

You being surprised is not evidence those people are lazy/inept.

While that article goes a long way toward showing how well voters are informed of politics news it doesn't provide a lot of information regarding why they are not better informed. We know old, rich white guys know more than poor black women but surely that could be due to who is more likely to have a subscription to the New York Times and the time to spend reading articles at night. One thing they did find was that: That sounds to me like generally people are reasonably good at sorting through the clutter. It doesn't feel to me like we yet have evidence that any voter set is generally lazy/inept.

How does one make a generalization about a population without having facts or examples from which to generalize? If you don't have any facts then the statement is simply bias. Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that you did. But Trump voters were at least a subset of the voters you were referring to.

I acknowledge that lazy/inept people exist. I do not accept that we can generalize Trump voters as lazy/inept, which is where this line of discussion originated.

I don't know. In 1900 very few people attended high school. Does that mean there is pretty much a statistical certainty those people were lazy/inept? https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/celebrating-150-years-of-education-data#:~:text=In 1900%2C relatively few students,were enrolled in postsecondary education.

A generalization is an inference based on the facts about a subset of the group. Do we actually have facts showing that part of the electorate is lazy/inept, thus rendering them unable to distinguish fact from fiction?

Is that fact or wishful thinking?

If ALL people are too lazy/inept to distinguish fact from fiction then I would agree. Since not everyone is lazy/inept, facts do matter. It is not possible to target only that subset of people.

Of course facts matter, regardless of how a subset of the population views them. I can't believe anyone on this site would suggest otherwise.

You were told to quit lying or go away. You stated that you'll choose the option to go away rather than the option to quit lying. It's not rocket science.

Correct. Other than bragging rights, the drubbing is irrelevant now that the election is over. I see your point that the Democrats have a weak record, but my question remains. Where do the voters go when they feel like BOTH parties haven't been helping them? Don't you choose the party with the better record? Unless you are saying you believe the Republicans have the better record.